CORAM
S.M.A BELGORE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
E.O. OGWUEGBU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U.A. KALGO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.U.ONU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
S.O. UWAIFO, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT.
PARTIES
CHIEF JACOB CLEOPAS BIARIKO & ORS(For themselves and as representatives of Ayamboko Village, Andoni) APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent (as plaintiff) sued the appellants (as Defendants) at the trial for a declaration as rightful holders of a customary right of occupancy in respect of some pieces of land, damages for trespass and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants while the defendants counter-claimed for the same reliefs. The trial court found for the plaintiffs and dismissed the counter-claim of the defendant. This is a further appeal against the findings of the 2 lower courts.?
HELD
APPEAL DISMISSED.?
ISSUES
Whether the court below was right in not placing any reliance whatever on Exhibit G, as did the court of first instance?Whether the court below was right in confirming the accuracy and probability of the Respondents traditional history/ root of title as against that of the Appellants?Whether the court below treated and considered all the (4) four issues raised by the Appellants in their brief of argument in its judgment??
RATIONES DECIDENDI
ONUS ON PLAINTIFF TO PROVE THE VALIDITY OF HIS TITLE
“….the law is well settled that the party claiming land is not bound to plead and prove more than one root of title to succeed. If he relies on more than one root, that is merely to make assurance doubly-sure”…..{Per ONU, J.S.C.}
CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACTS OF LOWER COURTS WILL NOT BE SET ASIDE EXCEPT WHERE IT IS PERVERSE
“An appellant who urges the Supreme Court to upset the concurrent findings of facts by the two lower courts as is being done in the instant case must show exceptional circumstances why this Court should interfere. Such exceptional circumstances, as decided by a long line of cases are that either:-
(a) That the findings are perverse or unsupportable from the evidence before the courts……..
(b) That there is a miscarriage of justice in any way”. {Per ONU, J.S.C.}
WHERE THERE IS CONFLICT OF TRADITIONAL HISTORY
“It is not the law that once there are conflicts in the traditional/histories adduced, the court must promptly declare them inconclusive and thereupon proceed to consider recent acts……….. It is when it can neither find any of the two histories probable nor conclusive that he will declare both inconclusive and proceed to decide the case on the basis of numerous and positive acts of possession and ownership” {Per ONU, J.S.C.}.
CASES CITED
1. Ladejo Onifade v. Alhaji Alimi Olayiwola & Ors. (1990) 7 NWLR (Part 161) 1302. Dibiamaka v. Osakwe (1989) 3 NWLR (Part. 107) 101;3. Akeredolu v. Akinremi (No.3) (1989) 3 NWLR (Part 108) 164 at 167)4. Olale v. Ekwelendu (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.115) 326 at 3475. Okafor v. Idigo (1984) 1 SCNLR 481; (1984) 6 S.C.1 6. Dr. Maja v. Dr. Leamdoro Stocco (1968) NMLR 3727. Obodo v. Ogba (1987) 2 NWLR (Part 54) 1 28. Balogun v.Agboola (1974) 10 S.C. 111: (1974) 1 All NLR (Pt11) 669. Idika v. Erisi (1988) 2 NWLR (Part 78) 56310. Nana Ofori Atta II v. Nana Abu Bonsra (1957) 3 WLR 830 at 834 – 83611. Onisango v. Akinkunmi & Ors. (1955-56) WNLR 3912. Ojiako v. Ogueze (1962) 1 SCNLR 112; (1962) I AII NLR 5813. Balogun v.Agboola (1974) 10 S.C. 111 at 11914. Ekpoke v. Usilo (1978) 6 – 7 S.C. 18715. lkpang v. Edoho (1978) 6 – 7 S.C 22116. Augusto v. Joshua (1976) I All NLR 312.17. Akinola v. Oluwo (1962) 1 SCNLR 352; (1’962) 1 All NLR 224 at 22718. Akunwala Nwagbogu v. Chief M.O. Ibeziako (1972) Vol. 2 (Part 1) ECLR 33519. Alhaji Amuda I. Adebambo & Ors. v. Alhaji Lamidi D. Olowosago (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt II) 20720. Kojo v. Bonsie (1957) 1WLR 122321. Obioha v. Duru (1994) 8 NWLR (Part 365) 63122. Lokoyi v. Olojo (1983) 8 S.C. 61 at 63; (1983) 2 SCNLR 12723. lbodo v. Enarofia (1980) 5 – 7 S.C. 4224. Nwadike v. lbekwe (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 71825. Fatoyinbo v. Williams (1956) SCNLR 274; (1956) 1FSC 87.26. The law is trite that ,to constitute estoppels, the parties, subject-matter and issue must be the same27. Okiji v. Adejobi (1960)5 FSC 44; (1960) SCNLR 13328. Ekretsu v. Oyebebere (1992) 9 NWLR (Part 266) 43829. Dokubo v. Omoni (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt.16) 647; (1999) 70 LRCN 176930. MORINATU ODUKA & ORS. V. KASUMU & ANOR. (1968) NMLR 2831. EZEWANI V. ONWORDI (1986) 4 NWLR (Part 33) 2732. BAKARE IBIYEMI & ORS. V. LAWANI OLUSOJI & ANOR. (1957) WRNLR 25?
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE?